The usual apologetics for pirates and war criminals.
They boarded a ship in international waters in support of a blockade of territory that they are the legal occupying power.
Absolutely anything that happened to them from that point was self-defence.
You’re welcome to address the actual laws that govern maritime blockades and certainly point to the fact that this wasn’t piracy, while nothing has been cited that suggests it was. Or you can call it piracy if that helps your argument.
You’re welcome to address the actual 4th Geneva Convention articles which govern internment and consignments and show that neither internment nor the control of consignments are war crimes. Or you can allege that the 4th Geneva Convention is a document that explicitly authorizes actions that are really war crimes… as defined (and prohibited) by that same exact document. If that helps your argument.
Really though, the facts are there, I just cited them. It should be pretty easy to engage with them.
As the facts have been both cited and quoted, the preference to <snip> them, ignore them, and go on as if they weren’t cited is odd.
You can engage the facts or you can ignore them, since rather obviously they’re not only not helpful for your argument, they’re detrimental to it. And you can even claim that relying on the facts instead of discarding them if they get in the way of your predetermined conclusion is a bad thing.
It’s just not a train of logic that stays on the tracks all that long, is all.
Oh, and:
You are entitled to your own politics. You are not entitled to your own facts, or your own reality.
Please address the actual laws governing maritime blockades rather than saying whatever sounds good if it helps your argument.
Thanks.
Hiding behind maritime laws, written by who? We know lawyers can find a law to justify almost anything. Quite shameful, really.
[ul]
[li] Don’t teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.[/li][li] Your post was a textbook example of an ad hominem argument. I’m sorry you’re one of those who believe that ad hominem is a fancy Latin name for an insult, but it just isn’t so, no matter how you’d like to believe it. In particular, an ad hominem is an attack against the person making the claim, rather than the substance of the claim itself. You’ve created an elaborate fiction where the source of the map I posted can be traced to some Lebanese or Palestinian terrorist group, or allies thereof. You have no proof that this is the case. Furthermore, you cannot point to a single false claim made in the map. This is a textbook ad hominem: dismissing a piece of evidence because of who claimed it (even when you have no proof that in fact the people you claim created it did in fact do so)![/li][li] Your real problem with the map isn’t who made it, but rather what it shows. Namely, an epic Israeli overreaction that destroyed the majority of Lebanese infrastructure. Even minor towns in the far north of the country did not escape bombardment from the IAF.[/li][li] The map isn’t even that relevant to my argument. Namely, I can look at a town in the north of Lebanon, listed as being bombed by the IDF, and find independent reports that the town was in fact bombed. Here’s a report stating that bridges in Tripoli, in the north of the country, were bombed. This runs directly counter to your claims that the fighting was limited to the south.[/li][li] I’m laughing into my sleeve and your hamfisted attempt at trying to twist the debate into `just’ discussing the Israeli land invasion. It’s funny watching you flail against somebody who can play fallacy golf just as well as you can. Though I suppose the difference between us is that I actually know what the fancy Latin phrases you like to kick around actually mean.[/li][/ul]
Nobody disputed there was a difference in the levels of bombing between the north and south of the country. The main difference was the south was completely flattened, whilst the north was only partially so.
You know, I’ve been thinking about it, and I’ve reached the conclusion that the U.S. could fix this entire mess. All it would take would be for Presdent Obama to announce that the U.S. Sixth Fleet would be inspectinng any and all humanitarian aid ships and guarantee their passage (if they aren’t carrying any arms) directly to Gaza. So long as ships willing submitted themselves to U.S. inspection. Israel would not be involved at all.
I think it would work. Israel trusts the U.S. not to allow arms through, and the Palestinians would be happy to receive the aid directly at Gaza and not at Israel’s whim. If the whole purpose is actually to help the Gazans and not to humilliate Israel and escalate the conflict, it would be a win-win situation.
It doesn’t even need to be the U.S. alone. There are several nations that would be accpetable to all parties - like France or German or Japan. It would be exactly the kind of peacekeeping effort the international community could be proud of.
What a great idea. You would have even more people you could directly insult, the next time you decide International agreements aren’t as important as Israel’s whim du jour.
I seem to recall this international peace keeping thingy has been tried before…
Which brings up your original fiction, which was that the entirety of Lebanon was flattened. Now you’re shifting the goalposts to “the majority”, only of Lebanese infrastructure, was destroyed. Of course, that’s as true as your original claim.
Obviously. Your argument was your original fiction, that the whole of Lebanon was flattened. Since that’s simply not true it’s easier to change it to something else and then try to argue that instead. Of course, as your original claim was that all of Lebanon was “flattened”, I assumed that you were talking about things that could reasonably be referred to as flattened (e.g. buildings). Silly me, I figured you were making a point about population centers and not bridges. :rolleyes:
The population centers in the north were not “flattened”. Of course, the population centers in most of the rest of the country were not “flattened.”
In point of fact, your claim that the entirety of Lebanon was “flattened” is simply nonsense.
But for some reason you won’t retract your claims even though you’ve just admitted you were wrong by saying, underlining mine:
Yet another fictional claim as the south was most certainly not completely flattened (you do understand what the adjective “completely” means, right? And no, it’s not an “idiom”). What’s wrong with the actual facts that you won’t use them? You already claimed that the entirety of Lebanon was “flattened”, now you admit that wasn’t true but go on to make the equally fictitious claim that the south was “completely” “flattened”. Why not discuss the actual damage done without all this obvious hyperbolic nonsense?
Or even better yet, why not start a separate thread to discuss a four year old war that you are repeatedly distorting with absurd hyperbole?
Why claim both that the entire country was “flattened”, and then claim that it wasn’t, without admitting that means at least one of your claims is fictional? What’s the point?
Oh, and please keep track of your own argument. Of course someone “Nobody disputed there was a difference in the levels of bombing between the north and south of the country.” You did that. Remember? When you claimed that the entire country was flattened, before you claimed that the entire country was not flattened? If you stick to the facts it’s must easier to keep your argument straight.
Yet again, please learn the definition of the ad hominem fallacy. It does not mean pointing out that a source for claims isn’t credible so the claims shouldn’t be taken on their word only.
Ironic, considering that I’ve never said anything even approaching that. I’d ask you to cite where I did, but obviously you can’t because it doesn’t exist. Just like your imagined claim that I ever said an ad hom fallacy was a simple insult.
Please learn the definition of the burden of proof, too. How, exactly, do you claim that one should prove that a bomb did not hit a certain set of coordinates on a certain day? Is it your claim that we have a database of All The Places Bombs Didn’t Hit, July Through August?
Ironically, obviously you don’t.
What a foolish situation, but par for the Israeli course. Gaza is a pressure-cooker. Israel kept applying heat until the local population, driven towards desperation and extremism, (democratically) elected Hamas in the 2006 elections. Hamas was perceived as the only agency that could help Gazans (by organizing basic services) and protect their interests (i.e. not roll over to Israel in the way Fatah was perceived).
That Hamas being in power only made things even worse is evident, but not necessarily when you’re **inside **the pressure cooker. Despair colours perceptions and magnifies extremism.
Now, the Gaza blockade is another excellent example of Israeli muscle-for-brains. There’s little question that the blockade - along with most other Israeli policies as concerns Gaza - is an attempt to strangle Hamas’s hold on power and make the lives of the population as miserable as possible until it turns away from Hamas (fat chance of that, when pressure is what drove Gaza into the arms of Hamas in the first place).
The excuse that the blockade is about stopping weapons is an incredibly flimsy one and I am especially surprised to see you Tomndebb, of all people, subscribe to it with so little thought. Food, medicines, spices, etc. are not weapons.
The blockade has had a severe impact on Gaza and is an application of collective punishment. This is not news: multiple credible reports have highlighted these issues, such as this one from the Red Cross last year cited in Haaretz:
According to the UN, today Israel is allowing less than a quarter of necessary aid, medicines, and supplies in to Gaza. Israel has in the past switched off fuel and power to the Gaza strip in an attempt to pressure Hamas. These factors, I think we all agree, make an excellent rationale for this blockade run. The flotilla can’t really be blamed for trying to deliver supplies through an unjust blockade to a needy population. Especially when this expedition was by no means a secret one.
From what I have read, I do not believe the Israeli commandos who stormed the blockade ships were at fault - they were entitled to defend themselves if attacked, and what happened is a tragedy but unless more evidence surfaces I do not think we can blame the soldiers for it (which is certainly a pleasant change from the pattern of disproportionate Israeli force). It appears that the soldiers held off from using lethal force as long as possible. Good for them if they did indeed do the right thing.
The real fault lies with the blockade itself and with the idiots who thought it would be a good idea to drop single soldiers on to sovereign ships in international waters in the middle of the night. It is so toxically foolish that it suggests either the customary Israeli lack of all common sense in policy, or even a deliberate attempt to inflame and bully all who dare oppose such policies.
The various attempts to portray the aid flotilla as “anything but aid workers” is just the usual Israeli spin cycle and further foolishness on this count can be safely ignored until better evidence surfaces. It seems certain that the boarded party had no firearms, and as for the “lethal weapons” that some posters are putting so much stock in… please! It is not very difficult to improvise any number of lethal weapons on a ship, and if anyone was using improvised weapons that’s not proof of anything.
A catapult (the most sophisticated weapon I have seen mentioned) is made in a matter of moments using commonly found rubber tubing and a brace. Axes are, I am sure, located throughout most vessels. Knives are commonly found wherever food is prepared and are frequently used and carried as tools. Metal bars and crowbars would not be out of place on a ship carrying crates. Hammers you can find in any toolbox. And so forth. It’s patently silly to portray the aid ships as a terrorist mission on the rationale that they defended themselves against boarding in the dark of night.
One other item to emphasize is the animal psychology at work here. If you’ve ever been surprised by similar conditions and are not a trained soldier who has been conditioned to respond in a certain manner, you know there are primarily two responses that flash up: fight or flight. When there are many of you and only one of the enemy, attack is the option that increases survival chances (especially when there is nowhere to run to). The goal becomes to overwhelm the enemy before it can consolidate into a greater threat. This is not typically a reasoned response, so I am not *at all *surprised that the Israeli soldiers were attacked, if that is what happened. Had the commandos approached in daylight and in a more intelligent, less invasive manner, the situation is likely to have had a different outcome.
This is another painful lesson to Israel that it has to start acting with a modicum of intelligence. The muscle-for-brains approach they employ across so many aspects of policy clearly doesn’t work and makes them the bad guys (not to mention idiots). This kind of foolishness is of Bushite proportions: think back to the adventure in Iraq that became a recruitment drive for Al Qaida. Self-defeating, and utterly stupid, like Israel’s recruitment drive for Hamas and other groups of the past several years.
I suppose that that’s a risk we’ll have to take.
It’s that weird association with an abstract again. You really can’t distinguish between individual morality and a state entity.
Good lord, again with this routine. Would it be possible for you just for once to avoid making a shrill spectacle for days on end? The other poster explained and clarified what he meant by “flattened”. We are all entitled to a little hyperbole. The fact that you can’t let it go even after multiple posts once again demonstrates that one of your nerves has been hit and you have to compensate by asserting yourself. Focus on the discussion rather than giving us the grandstanding spiel in which you *think *you score points.
I know the definition of an ad hominem. There is nothing wrong with the map. You are attempting to dismiss the map based on who created it. Do you actually dispute that any of the towns listed as being bombed on the map were in fact bombed? If so point to one, or do us all a favour and pipe down.
Interestingly, large parts of what you quoted refer to an “Occupying Power”. According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, Wikipedia, blah blah) Israel does not consider itself to be an occupying power:
Gaza Strip - Wikipedia](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5)
So which is it? Occupying Power or not?
Please see my previous post about how Israel does not consider themselves to be an Occupying Power.
“Israel” isn’t the Israeli government, it’s me and all the other citizens the government serves. That’s what it means to be a citizen of a democracy.
I am responsible for my country’s actions, and it is responsible for mine. *E pluribus unum *and all that. You may see this as a moral flaw, but I see it as a source of strength, maybe even a survival instinct.
And let’s go back to what I quoted from the BBC earlier about what Israel does not allow in:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12517513#post12517513
A little bit of insight into the blockade:
So, the blockade is all about keeping out such deadly weapons as coriander, jam, chocolate and fruit juice?
Well they are certainly starving them and the blockade blocks many foodstuffs (chocolate, fruit juice, jam, coriander …) that there is no logical reason for blocking.
Unless you care to let us know exactly why they block these foodstuffs?
And lets not forget things like wood so they can quickly rebuild shelters after Israel flattened the place.
Yes, it meant “not flattened.”
And “completely” means “only partially.”
And “all of Lebanon” means “only a part of Lebanon.”
Quite wrong of me to point out that his claims were fictional. Interestingly enough, of course, hyperbolic and fictional nonsense designed to sell an agenda doesn’t merit a response from you, but pointing it out? Why, that’s just awful!
Mmm hmmm. So surely you can show how 75% of Gaza’s population has starved to death? No? These are the same claims we hear, year after year after year, about an imminent humanitarian crisis?
Hrmmm.
I’m sure it’s right this time though.
Actually, “disagrees with Abe” is not, in fact, evidence of nefarious Israeli spin. Really. Especially since the flotilla folks themselves certified that they were not there to simply provide aid, but to break the blockade. Aid workers do not deliberately try to eliminate military blockades, that’s the role of a quite different type of agent.
Of course it seems certain because, well, because you say so. And beating someone in the head with a crowbar is sooo not a lethal action. Why, in some cultures it’s how they greet each other.
I agree. Please stop doing so while pretending that anybody but you has said any such thing. Danke.
This is indicative of the kind of argument you’re using. Why are you advancing such obviously false arguments as this? Seriously, why?
The picture you have given has the creator’s name written on it, and yet you claim there’s no proof that the people who say they created it, created it. And regardless of who created it (and remember, it’s your fiction that they’re associated with terrorists, please don’t confuse your fictions with the facts of what I’ve said), they show that they have no credibility on the issue as they refer to Israel proper as “occupied Palestine”. But they drew some circles on a map, so we need to go to the master index of Places Bombs Didn’t Fall to debunk their well substantiated drawings.
And where, by the way, did the Samidoun media team get their data from? Why, the uncited and unsourced lebanupdates blogspot page which doesn’t cite individual claims but merely says that entire batches come from "Tayyar, New TV and other news sources ". How could we possibly question the ruthless accuracy of the renowned “other news sources”?
I’d point out that it’s also a site that again shows its credibility is at issue as they call the defensive war against Hezbollah " the aggression against lebanon".
To say nothing about taking uncited, unsourced claims at face value when we know for a fact that there was a massive amount of disinformation and fauxtography coming out of numerous media outlets during the war.
Come on.
Just open a new thread if you really want to discuss the Lebanon war.
No, really, please learn it. It doesn’t mean “looking at the sole source of a claim to determine its credibility.”
For serious.
Learn about the burden of proof, too.
Careful use of flattened is required in this thread amanset. We have a poster who’s very sensitive to gentle hyperbole, poor thing. You should know better!